What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

== OFFICIAL OAKLAND RAIDERS 2018 thread == (1 Viewer)

KingPrawn said:
I would doubt it is but we don't know for sure. Can't really label anything a "steal" at this point.
Click to expand...
You don't think three-1st round picks and bypassing the highest defensive and possibly overall contract is a steal?

They won't include Roquain Smith but if they did then it would be a complete fleecing by the Raiders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam Schefter‏Verified account @AdamSchefter

FollowFollow @AdamSchefter

The most an NFL team has surrendered for a defensive player is when Vikings traded a 1, two 3’s and a swap of 5’s to Chiefs for DE Jared Allen. Bears trade for Khalil Mack, when it gets done, will top that, making it the most an NFL team has surrendered for a defensive player.

7:03 AM - 1 Sep 2018

 
Bracie Smathers said:
You don't think three-1st round picks and bypassing the highest defensive and possibly overall contract is a steal?

They won't include Roquain Smith but if they did then it would be a complete fleecing by the Raiders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam Schefter‏Verified account @AdamSchefter

FollowFollow @AdamSchefter

The most an NFL team has surrendered for a defensive player is when Vikings traded a 1, two 3’s and a swap of 5’s to Chiefs for DE Jared Allen. Bears trade for Khalil Mack, when it gets done, will top that, making it the most an NFL team has surrendered for a defensive player.

7:03 AM - 1 Sep 2018
Click to expand...
I was referring to someone labeling it a "steal" for the Bears before we know all the details. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

 
IHEARTFF said:
Mack now is worth way more than Jared Allen 1 dui away from expulsion was. 
Click to expand...
He is and the deal is already 'reported' to start at two-1st round picks PLUS...  so it has already surpassed the Jared Allen deal at the most that any team has ever given up for a defender in the history of the league.

The 'PLUS' has to be a player but that information won't be released until Mack has negotiated and signed his contract.

They NEVER release the name of a player who is part of a deal unless the deal is complete or it creates a bad locker room situation if they can't work out a contract and that player who was supposed to be part of the deal is still on the team.

 
Our 1st round picks for the last 20 years or so. Could make 1st rd picks for the next 10 or 20 years before you hit on a Woodson or Mack again. 2 1st rounders do not compensate for a known, proven stud. Let's hope it works out

Charles WoodsonDBMichigan

Mo CollinsGFlorida

Matt StinchcombGGeorgia

Sebastian JanikowskiPKFlorida State

Derrick GibsonDBFlorida State

Phillip BuchanonDBMiami

Napoleon HarrisLBNorthwestern

Nnamdi AsomughaDBCalifornia

Tyler BraytonDEColorado

Robert GalleryTIowa

Fabian WashingtonDBNebraska

Michael HuffDBTexas

JaMarcus Russell*QBLSU

Darren McFaddenRBArkansas

Darrius Heyward-BeyWRMaryland

Rolando McClainLBAlabama

2011—No pick——

2012—No pick——

D. J. HaydenDBHouston

Khalil MackLBBuffalo

Amari CooperWRAlabama

Karl JosephSWest Virginia

Gareon ConleyCBOhio State

Kolton MillerTUCLA

 
massraider said:
I don't care if it's two 1's and Roquon, which it's probably not.

Winning teams don't make this move.

It's on you, Gruden .
Click to expand...
I agree with this.

put all the lipstick on that pig ya like, this still stinks for the Raiders. 

Talking about saving $ pales when do it by  losing one of the best defensive players in the NFL. 

And now y’all have to hope Gruden & Co don’t screw up those draft picks. If either are a bust, this trade is awful. 

Risky deal. Good teams make Mack a cornerstone of their team and build their identity around him. 

In a way the raiders have now done that in all the wrong ways. This is who they are now: the team that couldn’t successfully keep their best player. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No way Smith is included in the deal.  Will be interesting to see what he winds up signing for to see just how ridiculous his demands were.

While the picks and cap space are nice, the entire point of having those things is so that you can draft and keep a guy like Mack.

 
Best manager in one of my leagues just picked up the Bears D/ST, which I admit is the shark move. I’m kinda mad I didn’t think of it. :doh:  

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
I agree with this.

put all the lipstick on that pig ya like, this still stinks for the Raiders. 

Talking about saving $ pales when do it by  losing one of the best defensive players in the NFL. 

And now y’all have to hope Gruden & Co don’t screw up those draft picks. If either are a bust, this trade is awful. 

Riaky deal. Good teams make Mack a cornerstone of their team and build their identity around him. 

In a way the raiders have now done that in all the wrong ways. This is who they are now: the team that couldn’t successfully keep their best player. 
Click to expand...
But I think there is more involved here than just player evaluation. Do the Raiders have the money to give Mack a large sum of guaranteed money? That move to Vegas has to cost them a pretty penny which drains the bank.

 
My sources say they just didnt have the capital reserve to pay the signing bonus.  That’s why there was no conversations about a deal.

 
KingPrawn said:
But I think there is more involved here than just player evaluation. Do the Raiders have the money to give Mack a large sum of guaranteed money? That move to Vegas has to cost them a pretty penny which drains the bank.
Click to expand...
I was called crazy for saying they couldn’t afford him. But then it was the same dude I put on ignore who said emphatically they weren’t trading him & I was “chicken littling” so...

If Mark Davis can’t afford to pay his best player, then he shouldn’t own a football team. It’s that simple. It’s a billionaire’s game & Mark ain’t a billionaire. 

Not to mention the obscene $ they paid their HC. 

Mark should take on a partner or sell the team. Losing Mack should be an unacceptable line for Raiders fans. The should send 1,000,000s of angry letters and emails. 

Instead they’ll somehow try to justify it like it’s a good thing, just like many have done with the move to Vegas. 

Gotta be hard to be a Raiders fan. If they were my team I’d be furious. Who cares if they save $$$. Ain’t my money. I want the best players, period. Mack was their best player. Now he’s not. That should be unacceptable to fans. 

 
Any guesses on our revised win total this year, assuming no Mack? My assumption is the player we get, if any at all, won't be Smith.

I think we're strong contenders for a mediocre losing season, say 7-9.

 
LAUNCH said:
My sources say they just didnt have the capital reserve to pay the signing bonus.  That’s why there was no conversations about a deal.
Click to expand...
That’s been the rumor around talk radio for months. Greg Papa talked about it many many times on 95.7 the game.

i mentioned this a few pages back & was called a fool for listening to Papa. 

:whistle:  

If it’s true, then Mark Davis should sell the team to someone who can afford to pay players. Mack was getting paid one way or another. Sucks it’s another team doing it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
LAUNCH said:
My sources say they just didnt have the capital reserve to pay the signing bonus.  That’s why there was no conversations about a deal.
Click to expand...
My sources say this dumb narrative made the rounds before Carr was signed. 

I'm completely willing to believe this was a Gruden getting clever move. Doesn't think it makes sense to pay one guy like that. 

I figure it'll wind up hurting both teams. Raiders defense suffers, and Bears lack draft capital to surround Man and Trubisky with talent.

Unless Key is Von Miller, and Hurst is John Randle, this year is gonna be tough.

And even if they are, we could have put them next to Mack. 

Awful. 

They get a ton, that's great. But it pushes the team back. Sick of wasting years building.

 
steelwind said:
I’d give Carr and the WRs a bump.  They already had a suspect D and it got worse. Some shootouts coming up.  First on MNF vs Rams.
Click to expand...
I was thinking this too. Losing elite pass rush makes an already suspect secondary that much worse. Though they did just bring in some players. 

Rams aren’t exactly slouches on defense though, ironically that’s in part because they got a deal done with Donald. 

Shootouts might happen, but not a lot of teams find success against the Rams like that. 

 
massraider said:
I figure it'll wind up hurting both teams. Raiders defense suffers, and Bears lack draft capital to surround Man and Trubisky with talent.
Click to expand...
Have to disagree here. If the Bears had a chance to take Mack with their first rounder next year, it would be a slam dunk pick, so essentially, they are giving up a 2020 1st rounder for one of the top 3 defensive players in all of football. 

The money they have to pay is an important part of the equation but I don’t think the draft capital they gave up is hurting them, especially if they finish over 8-8 where that pick is not in the top portion of the draft. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
efactor said:
Have to disagree here. If the Bears had a chance to take Mack with their first rounder next year, it would be a slam dunk pick, so essentially, they are giving up a 2020 1st rounder for one of the top 3 defensive players in all of football. 

The money they have to pay is an important part of the equation but I think the draft capital they gave up is not hurting them, especially if they finish over 8-8 where that pick is not in the top portion of the draft. 
Click to expand...
I'm reading it's more than two#1s, and these mega trades normally don't work for the team getting the one player. 

I'm not trying to spin this. History says the big deals aren't good for the team getting the player. 

 this is like the Pats trading Chandler Jones. Thinking you don't wanna pay top dollar for one guy, we saw how no pass rush worked out in the Super Bowl. 

 
efactor said:
Have to disagree here. If the Bears had a chance to take Mack with their first rounder next year, it would be a slam dunk pick, so essentially, they are giving up a 2020 1st rounder for one of the top 3 defensive players in all of football. 

The money they have to pay is an important part of the equation but I think the draft capital they gave up is not hurting them, especially if they finish over 8-8 where that pick is not in the top portion of the draft. 
Click to expand...
I agree. 

And what message does this send the rest of the Raiders players? 

“Don’t be too good or we won’t be able to keep you.”

not exactly a way to inspire the best play.  :shrug:

 
efactor said:
Have to disagree here. If the Bears had a chance to take Mack with their first rounder next year, it would be a slam dunk pick, so essentially, they are giving up a 2020 1st rounder for one of the top 3 defensive players in all of football. 

The money they have to pay is an important part of the equation but I think the draft capital they gave up is not hurting them, especially if they finish over 8-8 where that pick is not in the top portion of the draft. 
Click to expand...
Due to poor drafting by previous regime, they have the 4th most salary cap space in the league with only really one guy on the roster they need to extend by next year.  It's a great deal for the Bears, considering where they are at the current time. 

 
massraider said:
I'm reading it's more than two#1s, and these mega trades normally don't work for the team getting the one player. 

I'm not trying to spin this. History says the big deals aren't good for the team getting the player. 

 this is like the Pats trading Chandler Jones. Thinking you don't wanna pay top dollar for one guy, we saw how no pass rush worked out in the Super Bowl. 
Click to expand...
Will be interesting to see who the player is for sure. 

Mack is just such a great player. I was hoping my Niners would make a move to get him for 2 1sts but Lynch was too slow. Snooze, you lose. 

 
massraider said:
I'm reading it's more than two#1s, and these mega trades normally don't work for the team getting the one player. 

I'm not trying to spin this. History says the big deals aren't good for the team getting the player. 

 this is like the Pats trading Chandler Jones. Thinking you don't wanna pay top dollar for one guy, we saw how no pass rush worked out in the Super Bowl. 
Click to expand...
IMO the only way this is bad for the Bears is if Mack gets injured, but that’s a risk all teams take with all players getting guaranteed $.

the only other possible risk is that Mack gets paid, & gets fat &/or lazy, which doesn’t seem to be his character.

if Mack is healthy & productive, Bears for a better deal here. Assuming it gets done, they've successfully acquired a top 2 DL, and a generational talent at that. 

 
massraider said:
Any NFL owner can get a 70 mill line of credit to throw in escrow if needed. 

At very friendly rates. An NFL owner is considered a good risk. Come on now.  

The cash thing has been said for years, and Raiders were always spending in free agency. Please.
Click to expand...
So why didn’t he? Mark Davis is the one NFL owner I could see a bank rejecting.

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
I was thinking this too. Losing elite pass rush makes an already suspect secondary that much worse. Though they did just bring in some players. 

Rams aren’t exactly slouches on defense though, ironically that’s in part because they got a deal done with Donald. 

Shootouts might happen, but not a lot of teams find success against the Rams like that. 
Click to expand...
Agree.  Never said they will find success lol.  But MNF they are at home.  Vegas line just updated and the game is currently 50 under.  Sharks are predicting high score game.

Game script looks like Rams up two scores.  I can see Carr throw for 320 3 TD 3 int.

Rams 28 Raiders 21

 
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider said:
Any NFL owner can get a 70 mill line of credit to throw in escrow if needed. 

At very friendly rates. An NFL owner is considered a good risk. Come on now.  

The cash thing has been said for years, and Raiders were always spending in free agency. Please.
Click to expand...
And if that line of credit has been extended to finance the move?

 
 did we really want a disgruntled player on the team anyways? 

If getting him to play by forcing him into a corner ...then franchising him for a couple of years ..was the teams only recourse im thinking its better to just walk away from a potentially sour situation and find players who want to play for Gruden...having 2 first rd picks all but Guarantees we find a guy with serious talent next year...whats the talent pool defensively look like coming out of college? And think of trades the Raiders could make with that kind of bait   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BustedKnuckles said:
 did we really want a disgruntled player on the team anyways? 

If getting him to play by forcing him into a corner ...then franchising him for a couple of years ..was the teams only recourse im thinking its better to just walk away from a potentially sour situation and find players who want to play for Gruden...having 3 first rd picks all but Guarantees we find a guy with serious talent next year...whats the talent pool defensively look like coming out of college? And think of trades the Raiders could make with that kind of bait   
Click to expand...
There’s that spin I love so much. 

He was only gonna be “disgruntled” (if he actually was) because the contract negotiation stalled. 

This was a self-inflicted wound by the Raiders.

There’s zero reports saying Mack was disgruntled.  

See: Aaron Donald for how a competent team keeps their best player. Pretty sure they’re not worried about him being disgruntled. 

 
Two 1st rounds and Smith. Sure. I would be happy. Short of that, and I am not really expecting that, I can't see being happy.

 
This is not good if true.

They traded Mack because they didn't have the up-front guaranteed money.

Sheesh.

Just think if they would have taken offers BEFORE the draft?

New Orleans gave up two-1st round picks for Davenport and the first they got this year was the 27th pick.  

Oakland could have gotten the 4th pick from Cleveland and taken Chubb to replace Mack AND then gotten an extra 1st next next year AND gotten Jamie Collins as a cherry on top.

---------------------

Greg Gabriel‏ @greggabe

FollowFollow @greggabe

I had heard 2 weeks ago that the Raiders has cash flow problems. That wasn’t confirmed to me until about 3 min ago in a DM from someone in league

6:12 AM - 1 Sep 2018

---------------------

Paul Peck‏ @PeckOnSports 3h3 hours ago

Replying to @greggabe

Probably the biggest reason they couldn’t get a deal done. Didn’t have the guaranteed money

---------------------

https://twitter.com/search?q=Raiders&src=tren

 
Wow, terrible deal for Raiders unless they nail both picks (doesn't matter what other pieces are involved). You just don't trade a stud in his prime for a couple maybes/probably nots.

Maybe they were so enamored with their draft choices in 2018 they said to themselves, "This drafting stuff is easy. Let's get more picks. We're the smartest guys in the room."

And I wonder how much their alleged success in this draft made it easier in their eyes to trade Mack.

Gruden will need all his sale skills to sell this to the team, starting with Bruce Irvin and Derek Carr.

Took the cheap way out. Wow.

 
As much as I would love to keep Mack, the cap number just wasn't going to work. I hate how people compare the Mack situation to the Donald situation. Sure, they are comparable talents but Rams aren't paying anyone $25m before they signed Donald. The Raiders already paying Carr $25m per year, and another 22-23m going to one player is a recipe for mediocrity if you can't afford to add players around your superstars.

Seems like it's a common trend lately to build a team during a window when they have their superstar on a cheap and affordable rookie contract before the players get expensive. Mostly quarterbacks on the rookie deals, such as Seahawks winning the super bowl with Russell Wilson on their rookie deals. Eagles with Wentz/Foles. The Raiders already are past that window when they signed Carr to that extension, and there were no way in hell they would be able to compete if they signed Mack to another colossal deal. 

There are ZERO teams paying two players 20+m per year. ZERO.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
Jim Harbaugh vs Patrick Mahomes or How the West was Won
Replies
0
Views
135
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain
P
  • Sticky
Index to Offensive Player and Team Threads - Now Updated for 2023
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
BobbyLayne
Running Backs Don't Matter 101
4 5 6
Replies
284
Views
10K
humpback
H

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top